Muslim fans of Pejawar seer vow to protect Udupi Mutt from Dalit agitators

In a development which highlights the diversity in the United Kingdom’s legal system, a 40-year-old Muslim woman has become the first hijab-wearing judge in the country.

Raffia Arshad, a barrister, was appointed a deputy district judge on the Midlands circuit last week after 17-year career in law.  

She said her promotion was great news for diversity in the world’s most respected legal system. She hopes to be an inspiration to young Muslims.

Ms Arshad, who grew up in Yorkshire, north England, has wanted to work in law since she was 11.

Ms Arshad said the judicial office was looking to promote diversity, but when they appointed her they did not know that she wore the hijab.

‘It’s definitely bigger than me,” she told Metro newspaper. "I know this is not about me.

"It’s important for all women, not just Muslim women, but it is particularly important for Muslim women."

Ms Arshad, a mother of three, has been practising private law dealing with children, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and other cases involving Islamic law for the past 17 years.

She was the first in her family to go to university and has also written a leading text on Islamic family law.

Although the promotion by the Lord Chief Justice was welcome news for her, Ms Arshad said the happiness from other people sharing the news was “far greater”.

“I’ve had so many emails from people, men and women," she said.

"It’s the ones from women that stand out, saying that they wear a hijab and thought they wouldn’t even be able to become a barrister, let alone a judge."

Ms Arshad is regularly the subject of discrimination in the courtroom because of her choice to wear the hijab.

She is sometimes mistaken for a court worker or a client.

Ms Arshad said that recently she was asked by an usher whether she was a client, an interpreter, and even if she were on work experience.

“I have nothing against the usher who said that but it reflects that as a society, even for somebody who works in the courts, there is still this prejudicial view that professionals at the top end don’t look like me,” she said.

A family member once advised her to not wear a hijab at an interview for a scholarship at the Inns of Court School of Law in 2001, warning that it would affect her chances of landing the role.

“I decided that I was going to wear my headscarf because for me it’s so important to accept the person for who they are," Ms Arshad said.

"And if I had to become a different person to pursue my profession, it’s not something I wanted.”

The joint heads of St Mary’s Family Law Chambers said they were “delighted” to hear the news of her appointment.

“Raffia has led the way for Muslim women to succeed in the law and at the bar, and has worked tirelessly to promote equality and diversity in the profession,” Vickie Hodges and Judy Claxton said.

“It is an appointment richly deserved and entirely on merit, and all at St Mary’s are proud of her and wish her every success.”

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.